Organic & anti-GM: Science or Pseudoscience?

[devour]

Organic. It's a pervasive label on everything from produce to frozen foods and boxed mac & cheese. It's changing the landscape of our grocery stores. Increasingly more items have an organic alternative anywhere from a dollar more to sometimes double the price. The philosophy of organic foods is fairly simple. Using no unnatural chemicals, pesticides, or fertilizers yields a more nutritionally sound, better tasting product. It's something that makes intuitive enough sense for me to buy an organic product when the price isn't outrageous. Friends, family and even I will boast when we find a particular deal on some great, organic product. But what if the virtues of organic food are overinflated or if the philosophy of organic food isn't necessarily sound?

Safety:

Watching the news about how organophosphates may be causing ADHD certainly doesn't make me feel hoodwinked when I feed organic crops to my 1-year old daughter. But this is admittedly a reactionary position with respect to the overall practice of conventional farming. If we can find safer, synthetic substances that will yield the same pest-fighting qualities, then we can avoid the deleterious effects. Arguably some data supports the notion that organophosphates may be deleterious to our mental health. Since this chemical is present in much of our commercial produce, I thought that was a pretty good point in "organic's" favor, or at least its position alongside other products. Or is it?

"Since the organic pesticides and fungicides are less efficient than their modern synthetic counterparts, up to seven times as much of it must be used. Organic pesticides include rotenone, which has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and is a natural poison used in hunting by some native tribes; pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine..."

Another thing that I found interesting is that E. coli is significantly higher in organic produce because natural fertilizers are used. It makes sense, of course, but it kind of goes against the conventional wisdom.

Why are we convinced that natural substances may not harbor the same dangers? Is 'organic' a false security blanket?

Taste:

I'm even less sure about the claims of organic foods in this category. Sure, I've bought some organic produce before and claimed it tasted amazing, but maybe it was simply a matter of confirmation bias and the power of suggestion. Or maybe it was just a very good product that would have tasted the same despite whether or not it was organic. From my personal experience, I would probably confirm that the many times I have bought organic that it was a superior product, but I really don't have any way to measure that objectively. It does remind me though of an experiment done on a TV show where they filled bottles of water from the tap and had people delivering praise because they were under the illusion that it was some fancy water. We can be prone to accepting claims based on our biases.

As far as the anti-GM movement, my disagreement is actually less ambivalent than the one I have toward the 'organic' label. It seems unusual to oppose the production of a food-bearing plant that would be naturally resistant to pests, produce higher yields, with less water. In fact, it could be the saving grace of starving countries. The "Frankenstein" element doesn't bother me at all. We've been altering plants genetic materials through artificial selection practices and 'unnaturally' cultivating food products for centuries. If you don't believe me, research the banana.

I'd like to write more, but I want to see what everyone else thinks.

[paulraphael]

The trouble is, the rules governing the Organic designation are so complex and replete with loopholes, and conversely, of such narrow scope, that it's almost impossible to generalize. Some of the organic rules are good. Some aren't. Some are potentially good or bad, depending on context and other factors.

In the end, it's very hard to codify good and responsible farming practices. The organic designation is an imperfect and extremely incomplete attempt. There is delcious, ecologically responsible produce that is raised both organically and conventionally; likewise there is terrible, ecologically disasterous produce that is raised both organically and conventionally.

I'd say that your odds are a little better if you go with the orgnic label, all else being equal. But that's not a resounding endorsement.

GMO is a different sort of issue. I think you're right that its potential to feed underfed nations is huge. I also think it's irresponsible to dismiss the concerns. There is a difference between conventional breeding and genetic modification. The ramifications of altering the genome of a plant simply can't be known without experimentation and observation over a long span of time.

At the very least, GMO food should be labelled. People not willing to take a completely unknown risk would be free to avoid it. Braver people, including those who face the very known risk of malnutrition, would probably make the opposite choice.

[devour]

I'd say that your odds are a little better if you go with the orgnic label, all else being equal. But that's not a resounding endorsement.

That's sort of the position I'm in too. Consider the fact that the "organic" label is very flexible and non-encompassing. First of all, I think "buy local" is the best thing a consumer can do, but the convenience of the supermarket is hard to ignore. For those of us who don't plan our weekly meal schedule down to the last detail, we're going to have to settle for what's at the supermarket. What that means is that our organic produce is sold by the same companies that sell the non-organic product. They know they can sell this product much higher because the costs associated with organic production is higher, but they really don't suffer as badly as the independent farmers. They have the land and the ridiculous markup to compensate. For them, it doesn't matter if the science justifies the product. The marketing and conventional wisdom of organic sells itself. At the very least, the organic label does inform the consumer about some guidelines that farmers followed when raising the crop, but I think information campaigns, better labeling and other methods are better ways of informing the customer rather than slapping a label that designates 5 or 6 tenuously beneficial criteria.

When we consider what a consumer is attempting to do by purchasing an organic crop (making decisions that positively impact the marketplace, make ecologically responsible choices, and make healthier choices), it makes it all the more important for us to know if what they are doing is actually the opposite of what they intend. What is the consumer not aware of with organic crops? They should know, at this point, that there is a perceived superiority of organic crops based on the way the items are presented and priced at the supermarket. Do they know that natural and synthetic pesticides can contain the same toxic compounds (or else they wouldn't work)? Do they know the increased threat of E. coli? Do they know that the "organic" production requires more land, which may impact future farming practices and limit production (making supply an issue in the face of population growth)?

GMO is a different sort of issue. I think you're right that its potential to feed underfed nations is huge. I also think it's irresponsible to dismiss the concerns. There is a difference between conventional breeding and genetic modification. The ramifications of altering the genome of a plant simply can't be known without experimentation and observation over a long span of time.

I sort of disagree, which probably isn't surprising. I think the issues are actually tied together by a common thread: A fear of things that are synthetic, man-made, and unnatural. While it's probably best to avoid things that we know are toxic, we also know that toxic chemicals (and often the same ones) are present in natural forms. That means chemically they are identical. I think that philosophy crosses over to the anti-GM front on the same premise, but regarding genetics rather than chemicals.

For one thing, what is the difference between changing the genetics of an organism using sexual selection or altering them manually? There is a difference, but other than method, what is that distinction and what is its significance? There's obviously less restriction as to what genes can be moved from what organism, and that's admittedly a bit freaky sounding. But here are the caveats and ethics involved: It absolutely should be tested completely and thoroughly. As with any crop though, there's always the dangers of invasive species. It must be controlled.

My only real objection to GMO is the issue of biodiversity.

Michael Specter has an interesting take on this subject, definitely more passionate than I am about it (the food portion starts about 12 mins in).

[BadRabbit]

The argument is usually made for GMO that it is actually less likely to produce unwanted traits than conventional breeding because the changes are made at a genetic level. Only the exact traits that you want to change are altered. In conventional breeding you can be selecting for one trait, only to find that you've inadvertently selected for another unwanted one as well.

[andiesenji]

My daughter, after twenty-five or so years of being able to consume corn products, began having rather severe intestinal problems and some other indications of allergic reactions with eating certain foods.

It took several years, with multiple specialists until it was determined that she had a sensitivity to GMO corn products, which seem to be in an astonishing number of foods.

It seems to be an inherited trait as two of her children are also affected but with some slightly different symptoms.

She has no problems with heirloom corn, non-GMO corn products. Note that both Rumford and Clabber Girl baking powder specify on the label that they do not contain GMO corn starch.

If you read food labels carefully, you will find that there is modified food starch in foods that you would never guess it was needed. It seems to be a cost saving process and often the product is just not as good as it was before this addition.

Certain snack foods - crackers - are just one example.

Certainly there is a certain benefit when genetically altered food plants produce more for poor people in poor countries.

The problem is that farmers in these countries can't save seed from one crop to produce a second and third, they have to buy new seeds for each growing season so the huge multinational companies benefit far more than the citizens of third world countries.

Frankly, I prefer to buy organic and non GMO products. I grow heirloom tomatoes, peppers and etc.

I don't use pesticides and don't want pesticides in my food. It is extremely expensive to get organic certification in California and I like to support the people who persevere in this endeavor.

Edited August 20, 2010 by andiesenji (log)

[Yajna Patni]

I think the real benefit to organic is not the taste of the resulting produce, but the fact that the process is less harmful to the soil. Chemicals work, but they also lead to depleted soil which can not support more plants without even more chemicals.

[azurite]

One of the issues w/GMO crops is that a single corporation owns genes in essential food crops (Monsanto is the only corporation, but it is dominant in the US and has bought a number of other seed companies in the past 5-7 years). Monsanto has been very quick to sue farmers for alleged breaches of its patents and to sue those who have not bought seed from Monsanto, but have had pollen from Monsanto corn blow into their growing corn. Monsanto successfully sued such a farmer for patent infringement in Canada, years ago. As someone else noted, farmers cannot save GMO seed (violation of patent, among other issues) and saving seeds is one way that farmers everywhere (and especially in poorer nations) have saved sparse cash and have also developed varieties of food crops that are well suited for their particular climate or microclimate.

There is growing evidence that something Monsanto initially claimed would not happen has happened-the Roundup Ready gene (gene or genes that make the plant resistant to RoundUp)--has spread from rapeseed (canola) to a related weed. Who knows if that gene will eventually migrate to other related plants? Is it a good thing for farmers to say they need to use now banned herbicides (because they're dangerous) because RoundUp is no longer effective?

There's evidence that organic growing practices lead to less soil loss through erosion and less water consumption. The reason is that the soil is in so much better shape that it retains water better.

In 1974, there was a massive failure of much of the corn crop in the US, because the market was dominated by one particular type of hybrid seed for corn--which just happened (a little mistake by the people who'd bred it) to be susceptible to some kind of fungus. Scientists/plant breeders, were able to go to Mexico, where corn originated and find/use this reservoir of genes ("heirloom" corn/maize) to find a more resistant corn & start again. This reservoir of ancient genes is now being contaminated by GMO corn pollen. Have to wonder which will happen first--Monsanto lays claim to all of the corn there because all of the corn varieties have some of the genes that Monsanto owns, or that it turns out that the new wonder corn has a weakness, which will be quickly exploited by whatever insect, fungus, virus, or other pest it's susceptible to--and where will we got then to start over?

I believe Monsanto has been sued successfully for the failure of its cotton seed/crop to perform as advertised--I remember reading a case or two 5 or 6 years ago.

It's my understanding that GMO crops tend to perform well for the first few years, and then yields drop and pest resistance goes down. Too many expensive inputs are required for GM crops to really help hungry nations. For quite a few nations, the food problem is at least partly related to transport & supply issues. Some nations have, at least in the past, pretty much been forced to stop growing local/native food crops and plant cash crops instead. For lack of other exports, that's almost the only way they can pay off loans (IMF, World Bank, etc.). Some have difficulties for political reasons (Zimbabwe, for example) and have gone from being self-sufficient in major food crops, to having to export.

As a home gardener, who grows some veg w/mixed success (and no greenhouse), I can't imagine any one seed for broccoli, sweet corn, wheat, lettuce, potatoes (or tubers, etc), spinach, kale, cukes, melons, doing well everywhere. As far as susceptibility to pests, etc., it's asking for trouble (see 1974 corn crop).

[paulraphael]

For one thing, what is the difference between changing the genetics of an organism using sexual selection or altering them manually? There is a difference, but other than method, what is that distinction and what is its significance?

The difference is that unlike selection processes (where you're accelerating the effects of natural variation) or hibridization (where you're combining existing traits of two or more plants) genetic modification is the creation of a significant mutation. It's an unknown quantity.

If you read food labels carefully, you will find that there is modified food starch in foods that you would never guess it was needed.

Luckily, "modified food starch" doesn't mean GMO ... it just means that a regular starch has been altered, usually with enzymes, in order to work better as a thickener or emulsifier or binder or somesuch thing. There are no known dangers and these things are used in tiny quantities.

Strange and unfortunate story about your daughter. Did the specialists say they've seen much of this sensitivity?

Azurite, if a fraction of what you say is true about Monsanto (and I've heard it elsewhere) I think you've given the best argument so far against GMO foods ... at least their current manifestation. I'm going to do some research on the state of the evil empire.

[andiesenji]

For one thing, what is the difference between changing the genetics of an organism using sexual selection or altering them manually? There is a difference, but other than method, what is that distinction and what is its significance?

The difference is that unlike selection processes (where you're accelerating the effects of natural variation) or hibridization (where you're combining existing traits of two or more plants) genetic modification is the creation of a significant mutation. It's an unknown quantity.

If you read food labels carefully, you will find that there is modified food starch in foods that you would never guess it was needed.

Luckily, "modified food starch" doesn't mean GMO ... it just means that a regular starch has been altered, usually with enzymes, in order to work better as a thickener or emulsifier or binder or somesuch thing. There are no known dangers and these things are used in tiny quantities.

Strange and unfortunate story about your daughter. Did the specialists say they've seen much of this sensitivity?

Azurite, if a fraction of what you say is true about Monsanto (and I've heard it elsewhere) I think you've given the best argument so far against GMO foods ... at least their current manifestation. I'm going to do some research on the state of the evil empire.

The one specialist in San Francisco said he had seen a significant increase in people complaining of intermittent regional ileitis, (when chronic this is Crohn's disease), associated with certain foods, not related to celiac disease or to lactose intolerance or the other "usual suspects" he began a double blind study in the early '90s.

Putting subjects on a limited diet for a period of time and then feeding genetically modified food starch (corn based, which is the cheapest and thus the most common) he could duplicate their symptoms.

Feeding these same subjects corn products from heirloom varieties (disguised so they weren't aware of what they were consuming), the subject group did not have the symptoms but when the GMO product in the same foods was fed, they did have the symptoms. The control group was given no GMO product and did not develop symptoms.

The problem is that since the laws were relaxed in 2002, the multinational companies do not have to disclose the source of "modified food starch" so there is no way to tell if it has been genetically modified or not.'

Local companies, small manufacturers in certain states must identify their products. This is not a fair policy but that is just the way things are in the here and now.

[mgaretz]

The difference is that unlike selection processes (where you're accelerating the effects of natural variation) or hibridization (where you're combining existing traits of two or more plants) genetic modification is the creation of a significant mutation. It's an unknown quantity.

I don't know about "normal" food, but I know for hops (for beer) they make new varieties with genetic modification. Nothing as spohisticated as gene splicing - they chemically induce mutations with a compound like colchicine, It's a shotgun approach - you just hope that some of the mutations are useful and propogate them. Colchicine tends to make sterile and seedless plants - my guess is that it and compounds like it were used to come up with seedless varieties of many things we eat today.

Edited August 26, 2010 by mgaretz (log)

[andiesenji]

Genetically modified plants per se are not modified by Mendelian crosses and natural mutations but by actual modification of the genetic structure itself.

Genes are removed, others are substituted - from other plants and even from other species. Not long ago there was a Science channel segment on plants into which a gene from the lightning bug had been introduced to make a glow-in-the dark plant.

As mentioned above by azurite,

Monsanto has had many problems

Crop yields are increased and often these crops exhaust the soil far more rapidly than "normal" crops. Monsanto sells a heck of a lot of fertilizer to replace these nutrients so they have a death grip on the farmer from every angle.

Jeez, I keep remembering that old movie, Soylent Green, which scared the heck out of me and that was when I began to read ingredient labels on food packages and also the beginning of my turning to organic foods whenever possible. In those days there was less available and anything labeled organic was a lot more expensive. It's much better today.

[paulraphael]

The problem is that since the laws were relaxed in 2002, the multinational companies do not have to disclose the source of "modified food starch" so there is no way to tell if it has been genetically modified or not.'

Still, the term "modified starch" never means GMO. It always refers to chemical or heat or enzymatic altering of starch molecules to change their physical properties. While it's possible for modified starch to be made (at least in part) from the grain from GMO plants, this would have nothing to to do with the "modified" label.

With either modified or unmodified starches, the lack of labelling requirements means you won't know if there's any GMO content, unless you're buying certified organic, which is supposed to mean GMO-free (but this may not be guaranteed).

Edited August 27, 2010 by paulraphael (log)

[andiesenji]

Paul, I understand your point.

My reference was to the fact that multinational food companies do not have to comply with the same restrictions as local companies.

There are some loopholes, engineered by Congress, specifically to allow the big conglomerate companies to avoid listing specific sources of food ingredients but small, local companies in certain states (and particularly in California, Oregon and Washington) must list every ingredient and if it is GMO.

I don't think this is fair and that it puts an extra burden on the small producer.

This was corrected, to a point, after the pet food disaster when a product sourced from China (and not identified as such) caused illness and death in hundreds of animals.